The Iraq War (1 Viewer)

[Captain Gh3y]

It's not so much whether the war is for oil, but rather if that's necessarily a bad thing. I don't think it is.

 

[onebytwo]

It's not so much whether the war is for oil, but rather if that's necessarily a bad thing. I don't think it is.

WTF
so if indonesia invaded australia and stole our natural resources, say, our uranium, you'd be alright with that?

If its not a bad thing, why dont they admit it was the reason for invasion now

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Because it doesn't make for good propaganda, clearly. Most people have no idea that their life is really just oil moving things around so they'd feel some moral objection to a war for oil.

That's not to say removing Saddam couldn't have been beneficial to the people in Iraq; it might have been if they weren't lunatics who couldn't stop blowing each other up over who was the successor to Mohammad.

 

[onebytwo]

The Husseins (Uday, Qusay and Saddam), The former Ministry and army cheifs (including Chemical Ali) and Al-Zaqawi all being captured/killed can justify this war.

i must say that i hate this argument for three reasons:-
firstly, this wasnt the reason given to the international community for the war
secondly, the US supported sadams domestic atrocities, even the massacre of the 148 villagers, over which he was sentenced to death - first they support him by arming him with weapons, then 20 years later, they say it was horrible what he did - thats the height of hypocrisy
thirdly, iraq, after the sanctions, posed absolutely no threat to any western country or interest (i cant help but giggling when i type this, its so ridiculus)

 

[HotShot]

i must say that i hate this argument for three reasons:-
firstly, this wasnt the reason given to the international community for the war
secondly, the US supported sadams domestic atrocities, even the massacre of the 148 villagers, over which he was sentenced to death - first they support him by arming him with weapons, then 20 years later, they say it was horrible what he did - thats the height of hypocrisy
thirdly, iraq, after the sanctions, posed absolutely no threat to any western country or interest (i cant help but giggling when i type this, its so ridiculus)

Well, whatever it is the war is going on now in Iraq and Afghanistan. There has been a lot of speculation of withdrawing troops.

Withdrawing troops really is the worst thing you could do at the moment -already the attitude towards america, britain etc from other countries are pretty low, and withdrawing will only add to this.

I find it hard to understand why countries such as France wont support the war now - before its understandable why they didnt - but conditions have changed now. In WWI and WWII it was britain and america and the arabs who saved the them, and now they dont help back. (Of course the french are...)

But leaving Iraq+Afghanistan behind with instability is haven for the Terrorists they will immediately take control and launch attacks with much more ease. So what do we do - we put more troops there - wipe of the insurgency - get some new leaders for both countries (at the moment the afghani is so pro-us he has no idea whats going on and the iraqi leader doesnt have skills and knowledge for the job). Get some stablitiy there.

 

[littlewing69]

OBT, sanctions dont do shit.

Just look at Kim Jong Ill II and North Korea.

The country was a shit heap before, and still is. Sanctions didnt prevent him launching a second nuclear test.

A piss-poor one at that...

 

[onebytwo]

Well, whatever it is the war is going on now in Iraq and Afghanistan. There has been a lot of speculation of withdrawing troops.

Withdrawing troops really is the worst thing you could do at the moment -already the attitude towards america, britain etc from other countries are pretty low, and withdrawing will only add to this.

I find it hard to understand why countries such as France wont support the war now - before its understandable why they didnt - but conditions have changed now. In WWI and WWII it was britain and america and the arabs who saved the them, and now they dont help back. (Of course the french are...)

But leaving Iraq+Afghanistan behind with instability is haven for the Terrorists they will immediately take control and launch attacks with much more ease. So what do we do - we put more troops there - wipe of the insurgency - get some new leaders for both countries (at the moment the afghani is so pro-us he has no idea whats going on and the iraqi leader doesnt have skills and knowledge for the job). Get some stablitiy there.

i hope your not suggesting that more foreign troops and military presence will offset this civil war.

thats not going to fix it.

 

[banco55]

Because it doesn't make for good propaganda, clearly. Most people have no idea that their life is really just oil moving things around so they'd feel some moral objection to a war for oil.

That's not to say removing Saddam couldn't have been beneficial to the people in Iraq; it might have been if they weren't lunatics who couldn't stop blowing each other up over who was the successor to Mohammad.

I think if you told the Australian people that they'd save $20 at the petrol pump every time they filled up I think they'd be quite sanguine about a (sucessful) war for oil.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

No article is necessary to prove the war is for oil.
The neocons in the US have openly stated that they needed to secure oil reserves.
In the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) or the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" they clearly stated that the US should be "endevouring to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region" and "to prevent the emergence of a new rival". they also claim they needed to "secure access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil"

An Evidence or reliable articles are required to prove that US steal Iraqi oils and use it for free for its military operations in Iraq as previously claimed by Sam04u. I totally agreed that OIL has significant say in the reason for US invasion of Iraq, the first gulf war was also started by Saddam Hussein because he wanted to control middle east oil. And I do not see anything wrong with a country securing its vital supplies at the sametime of deposing one of the most ruthless dictators of modern history. Its a win win policy for US, securing its oil supplies and promoting democracy, freeing close to 20 million iraqis from the oppression of Saddam Hussein for over 30 years.

What I demanded for proof was the claim that US used Iraqis oil for free. Not a single drop of iraqi oils are used by US Troops in Iraq for free. Oils are supplied by halliburton to US bases around Iraq and there is no evidence whatsoever to proof that Halliburton got its oil for free from iraqi refineries. In fact most refined oils ready for use by US troops came from Kuwait and UAE( with lots of oil tankers attakced by insurgents on their way from Kuwait to baghdad -Mosul). All oils imported from Iraq to US are on the fair market price based on Oil price at New York Stock exchange, exactly similar to how Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, iran and venezuela export their oils at a fair world market price.

i must say that i hate this argument for three reasons:-
firstly, this wasnt the reason given to the international community for the war

You are damn wrong, the first and foremost reason for the US invasion was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. WMD was a sub-section, a FIRST reason why he should be overthrown. Read this

In 2002, the United States began to campaign for the overthrow of Iraq's President, Saddam Hussein. The United States, under the administration of George W. Bush, argued that Saddam Hussein was a threat to global peace, a vicious tyrant, and a sponsor of international terrorism. The Bush Administration also argued that they had reason to believe that Saddam Hussein was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction, something he had been forbidden to do since the end of the 1991 Gulf War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments'_pre-war_positions_on_invasion_of_Iraq#Background

secondly, the US supported sadams domestic atrocities, even the massacre of the 148 villagers, over which he was sentenced to death - first they support him by arming him with weapons, then 20 years later, they say it was horrible what he did - thats the height of hypocrisy

Another lie, US did not support him to massacre 148 villagers, US supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran which was considered by US as a bigger enemy than Saddam Hussein at that time. If US was guilty of that crime because it supplied weapons, so were USSR, France, China, UK all of them supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein. Therefore, your argument that US was responsible for 148 villager's death do not hold a drop of water. It is like blaming a gun shop for gun crime or blaming car dealers for car crashes and accidents.

thirdly, iraq, after the sanctions, posed absolutely no threat to any western country or interest

I agree it may not pose direct military threat to Europe or Americas, nonetheless Iraq or the middle east is better without Saddam and 19 million iraqis agreed with me.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

In this case the best way to stop the violence in Iraq, is to destabilise Iran.

 

[HotShot]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501



In this case the best way to stop the violence in Iraq, is to destabilise Iran.

haha just destabilise IRan as well? then u have iraq/afghanistan and Iran all screwed up - a haven for Terrorists.

 

[banco55]

LOL good luck destabilizing Iran. They are in a much better position to escalate the situation than the US is currently. They could have hezbollah take out a few American embassies for example.

 

[onebytwo]

An Evidence or reliable articles are required to prove that US steal Iraqi oils and use it for free for its military operations in Iraq as previously claimed by Sam04u. I totally agreed that OIL has significant say in the reason for US invasion of Iraq, the first gulf war was also started by Saddam Hussein because he wanted to control middle east oil. And I do not see anything wrong with a country securing its vital supplies at the sametime of deposing one of the most ruthless dictators of modern history. Its a win win policy for US, securing its oil supplies and promoting democracy, freeing close to 20 million iraqis from the oppression of Saddam Hussein for over 30 years.

it is well known that the US is shipping off oil that isnt even metered

What I demanded for proof was the claim that US used Iraqis oil for free. Not a single drop of iraqi oils are used by US Troops in Iraq for free. Oils are supplied by halliburton to US bases around Iraq and there is no evidence whatsoever to proof that Halliburton got its oil for free from iraqi refineries. In fact most refined oils ready for use by US troops came from Kuwait and UAE( with lots of oil tankers attakced by insurgents on their way from Kuwait to baghdad -Mosul). All oils imported from Iraq to US are on the fair market price based on Oil price at New York Stock exchange, exactly similar to how Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, iran and venezuela export their oils at a fair world market price.

are you trying to present halliburton in good light. the company that dick cheney has 8 million dollars worth of stock options, the comany with which cheney claims he has no ties?

You are damn wrong, the first and foremost reason for the US invasion was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. WMD was a sub-section, a FIRST reason why he should be overthrown.

sadam was in power for some 30 years, did it take the US that long to realise he was brutal? is the US going to invade and dispose of the 30 other dictators on this planet? wasnt the "brutal dictator" reason good enough that they had to throw in that bull about WMD's? if the US were really concerned about terror they would be directing more of their resources to catching bin laden, but their not, which is testament to the fact that eliminating terror wil never work and is not their first and foremost prioty

Another lie, US did not support him to massacre 148 villagers, US supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran which was considered by US as a bigger enemy than Saddam Hussein at that time. If US was guilty of that crime because it supplied weapons, so were USSR, France, China, UK all of them supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein. Therefore, your argument that US was responsible for 148 villager's death do not hold a drop of water. It is like blaming a gun shop for gun crime or blaming car dealers for car crashes and accidents.

they did not denounce nor condemn his actions. he would have been invaded and the supply of weapons to iraq should have been stopped and he should have been removed from power then and there, but he wasnt, they continued to support him militarily. the other countries you listed had the humility NOT to invade iraq with claims he was threat and had WMD's.

I agree it may not pose direct military threat to Europe or Americas, nonetheless Iraq or the middle east is better without Saddam and 19 million iraqis agreed with me.

so we concur that iraq was not "a threat to global peace"

dude, some 200000-600000 people have died and nobody knows how many have been injured. thats pretty much every iraqi either having a family member or friend killed or maimed in daily violence. how the fuck can an iraqi family praise American invasion and occupation knowing that it had brought on the death, either directly or indirectly, of a loved on?

do you have any imagination?

 

[Aryanbeauty]

it is well known that the US is shipping off oil that isnt even metered
are you trying to present halliburton in good light. the company that dick cheney has 8 million dollars worth of stock options, the comany with which cheney claims he has no ties?

It is also well known here in this board that you made up things without any proof/evidence to your so called well known claims such as US shipping off oils. Where do you get this from? Thats all we need to believe you.

Again do you have proof that Halliburton get its oil supplied to US troops by stealing from Iraqi oil refineries? Do not try to get away from your and Sam04U claims that US steal iraqi oils. Stand up for what you said and just give us proof whre you get these from? Is it from some reliable news sources or is it from a sermon given be Shiekh halily without no evidence as usual?

sadam was in power for some 30 years, did it take the US that long to realise he was brutal? is the US going to invade and dispose of the 30 other dictators on this planet? wasnt the "brutal dictator" reason good enough that they had to throw in that bull about WMD's? if the US were really concerned about terror they would be directing more of their resources to catching bin laden, but their not, which is testament to the fact that eliminating terror wil never work and is not their first and foremost prioty

If you are slightly literate about contemporary world history, there was cold war between USSR and USA up until 1990 and USA cannot or will not risk invading any country it wants without significant provocation or or foreign policy interest on USA. If he was that brutal as you said then what is wrong with deposing him later instead of NOT doing it and let him terrorise his citizens for another 30 years perhaps. Is that what you really want?
If the US is really concerned about Terror I think it's easiest strategy might be perhaps nuke all islamic countries and kill all of them since muslims are responsible for close to 99.9% of terrorism don't you agree? Is that what you want by telling USA to direct more resources? otherwise enlighten us what US is not doing enough to catch Osama Bin Laden and what you want them to do more.

Yes you are right as long as there are muslim radicals such as Shiekh Hilaly terrorism will never be wiped out completely.

they did not denounce nor condemn his actions. he would have been invaded and the supply of weapons to iraq should have been stopped and he should have been removed from power then and there, but he wasnt, they continued to support him militarily. the other countries you listed had the humility NOT to invade iraq with claims he was threat and had WMD's.

Where do you get that US did not denounced Saddam's killing of his citizens? Did UK, China, USSR, France denounce or not? So it is a show of humility to let Saddam terrorise his people as long as he wants? Oh well just about 5-7 million Iraqis(Sunni) agreed with you, close to 20 million Iraqis are on my side that Saddam must be removed.

so we concur that iraq was not "a threat to global peace"

dude, some 200000-600000 people have died and nobody knows how many have been injured. thats pretty much every iraqi either having a family member or friend killed or maimed in daily violence. how the fuck can an iraqi family praise American invasion and occupation knowing that it had brought on the death, either directly or indirectly, of a loved on?

do you have any imagination?

No he was not a global threat in a sense that would invade Fiji or Nauru or iceland. He was a Global threat proven by his record that he invaded Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and launching missiles into Israel without any provocation. What more evidence do you want that he was a threat? have you asked a Kuwaiti whose country was invaded by Saddam whether they like him or not? Iraqis are smart enough to know that those violence are brought on by islamic terrorist and bitter enmity between sunni and Shia, not USA and they are happy to get rid of Saddam at all cost.

 

[imaginarylife]

If the US is really concerned about Terror I think it's easiest strategy might be perhaps nuke all islamic countries and kill all of them since muslims are responsible for close to 99.9% of terrorism don't you agree?

No I don't agree, it is hardly fair to victimise an entire religion because of a minority. And, 99.99% of terrorrism is not caused by Muslims, it only appears that way because of media sensationalism.

 

[54247]

Aryan beaty
you dellusional being. As if the Bush administration isnt stealing oil from Iraq!! You quoted against "onebytwo" "It is also well known here in this board that you made up things without any proof/evidence to your so called well known claims such as US shipping off oils. Where do you get this from? Thats all we need to believe you." You hypocritical beast!!! every tom dick and harry realises that the Bush administration is stealing resources its just a shame its all gone wrong and that the mjority do not support it. Here listen to Galloway speaking to the senate... PROOF.
Maybe this will start making you reflect upon your barbaric mentality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W1FZWML6wA

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Aryan beaty
you dellusional being. As if the Bush administration isnt stealing oil from Iraq!! You quoted against "onebytwo" "It is also well known here in this board that you made up things without any proof/evidence to your so called well known claims such as US shipping off oils. Where do you get this from? Thats all we need to believe you." You hypocritical beast!!! every tom dick and harry realises that the Bush administration is stealing resources its just a shame its all gone wrong and that the mjority do not support it. Here listen to Galloway speaking to the senate... PROOF.
Maybe this will start making you reflect upon your barbaric mentality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W1FZWML6wA

Ok every tom dick and harry realise US steal resources yet you have no evidence. If it was such a widespread event that everyone knows why can't you give us a single evidence that US get Oils from iraq for free? any article? I've already seen Galloway at senate hearing NOT a speech, he was answering questions and No he does not give any evidence whatsoever that US steal oils from Iraq. If supporting US war on Terror/Iraq gave me barbaric mentality your Support for Saddam Hussein and his 30 years reign of terror and your desire to continue his terror over Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis shows your savage blood thirsty mentality.

Yes I am still waiting for proof that US or Halliburton steal oils from Iraq. :rofl:

 

[The Brucemaster]

Yes I am still waiting for proof that US or Halliburton steal oils from Iraq. :rofl:

Well that all depends on your definition of steal I guess.

If by steal you mean invade a foreign country without the consent of the United Nations and under false pretences, occupy that country for a few years while you "rebuild" (leading to a civil war and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths) and then establish an oil for food program whereby corporations bribe a genocidal dictator in exchange for oil then I would have to say that steal is the appropriate word for this situation, the proof being the very means by which we acquired this oil (see above).

 

[onebytwo]

i still cant understand why bush hasnt testified under oath and questioned about his administratons actions concerning the disaster that is the iraqi invasion and occupation

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Well that all depends on your definition of steal I guess.

If by steal you mean invade a foreign country without the consent of the United Nations and under false pretences, occupy that country for a few years while you "rebuild" (leading to a civil war and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths) and then establish an oil for food program whereby corporations bribe a genocidal dictator in exchange for oil then I would have to say that steal is the appropriate word for this situation, the proof being the very means by which we acquired this oil (see above).

Oil for Food was NOT established by US Government under Bush Administration, it was a UN undertaking before Iraq War (since 1995) and the scandal did not happen after or under US invasion, it happened during Saddam's rule and US Government was not responsible for it, corrupt UN workers with potential link to Koffi Annan and corrupt corporations such as AWB are responsible. The US invasion only expose corruptions of UN staff and Saddam Hussein and other corporations.

Even if the reason for iraqi invasion was to recover a penny owed by Saddam to Bush, it was still worth it , considering the liberation of close to 20 million Iraqis who were oppressed by Saddam for three decades.

No matter how you define it US did not steal Iraqi oils and you have no proof whatsoever and therefore the US is right and I am right, as always.

i still cant understand why bush hasnt testified under oath and questioned about his administratons actions concerning the disaster that is the iraqi invasion and occupation

Because you don't understand the working of US Constitution. Unless called on by Congress he has no reason to testify under oath, even so he can still refuse.